@stranger_in_a_strange_land I don’t see what you are so afraid of. If you haven’t read it the ruling is quite an interesting read as it demonstrates the fundamentals of the First Amendment in all it’s glory, something we should embrace not be critical of….
“Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against lawsthat would suppress it by design or inadvertence.”
[snip]
Political speech is “indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speechcomes from a corporation.”
How can you argue with that??
And if you do read this ruling it was brought about not so much because of the amount of potential money a corporation would spend on campaign ads but more so because of the nature of the ad which they called “electionerring communication” we all know as smear campaigns.
An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, orsatellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidatefor Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election, and that is “publicly distributed,” ),which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President . . . means” that the communication “an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days,”
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf